Can Militarism Make America Great Again?

a reply to: DJW001

The current President has made it clear that he wants to increase military spending. He wants to acquire more ships, planes, and "weapons of mass destruction." He clearly equates military might with prestige and influence.

Like any announcer, he says what he's told to.

You thought an election was going to change the current trend this country on? I was actually fooled a little, for a little while, too.

Shame on US.

originally posted by: 19KTankCommander
a reply to: DJW001 Internal affairs of other countries? enthusiasm ?, well lets see, since I have been alive and then some, Korea, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Iranian Hostage Crisis (I think it was 412 days) Grenada, Falkland War, Panama, Pan Am Flight 103, Cold War, Gulf War, 911, and the war on terrorism, if you look at all these things what is the one thing in common?


I don't think this any sort of adventurism at all.

1) How was Vietnam or the bay of pigs any of the USA business?

2) Falklands was not a USA war, it was a UK war fought with UK troops.

a reply to: intrptr

You thought an election was going to change the current trend this country on? I was actually fooled a little, for a little while, too.

Actually, Trump seems to want to double down. That has always been his style, and none of this can possibly be a surprise to anyone who was paying attention.

Now, to the point: do you think that increasing military spending* and "fighting terror" abroad will enhance the United States' reputation, or merely make things worse?

*Not including spending on veterans, who deserve better treatment for their service.

a reply to: DJW001

Militarism will lead to an arms race and so space based weapons which will in turn lead to war , a militaristic nation has never signaled hope for the world.

a reply to: crazyewok All the places I mentioned were events that had one form or another a person that wanted more power for themselves and it did not matter to them who they hurt or killed, The countries that responded to all the events were either called upon to help or it was attack on their citizens.

I do believe that the UK controlled most of the countries for decades that are currently in the news daily, tells me the UK knew something was going to happened way back, and they too seen the writing on the wall about being spread to thin,

Question about Vietnam and the bay of pigs was the business of the US, Vietnam we were asked to help initially to train the South Vietnamese Army form the dictator to the North, Bay of Pigs was to support the rebels that were cast out of Cuba when Castrol took over.

And yes I know that the Falkland wars was a UK operation, I remember sitting and listening to the briefs about it.

a reply to: gortex If I recall it was the Arms race and the space program that helped Russia to fall, they went broke trying to keep up with the US.

Nothing short of Non-interventionism at the least, preferably isolationism, will repair the US' reputation.

originally posted by: Ohanka
Nothing short of Non-interventionism at the least, preferably isolationism, will repair the US' reputation.

Please elaborate. Why would you prefer an isolationist United States? Would your country benefit from the USA imposing tariffs on goods you export to it? And what if a neighboring power were to invade your territory? Would you want the United States to stand idly by? Or would you want it to honor whatever mutual defense treaties may apply?

a reply to: DJW001

I can't speak for the effectiveness of the military being used internationally as being more relevant to how they are used internally, within the U.S. By that I mean, if TSHTF in the U.S., then it specifically pivots on which side the military and police side with. If the Military and Police side with the government as it breaks apart, then the people are done for... game over. If the Military and Police side with the citizens as it crumbles, then sovereign grounds may be reestablished.

An empire such as the one that exists in current times... the quickest rising and most wealthy of all equates to the realities that its from within that it will visit its own demise. The rest of the world just sits and waits for that exact scenario to take truth...

The current President has made it clear that he wants to increase military spending. He wants to acquire more ships, planes, and "weapons of mass destruction." He clearly equates military might with prestige and influence.

The military right now needs a spending increase to remain competitive for the next 5-10 years, much less the next 20 years. The problem is the current procurement and maintenance of the military's hardware and that takes a lot of money, you know that already, That system needs to be reworked or it will financially cripple the military.

Military might doesn't always equal prestige and influence, it's that same attitude that has gotten America into it's current situation.

Will militarism improve the United States' reputation in the eyes of others? Why or why not? Please be specific.

That depends on how it's used. If the buildup and increase in funding is used to impose the will of the United States on the rest of the world, the reputation will further erode. Bush 2.0. Obama was slick because he straight up, will talk around it without trying to admit anything. And "it" is about conflicts in different areas of the world. ( IMO, there was a lot of clashing in his executive branch and other areas of the military).

However, if Trump keeps it business (already boots on the ground in Syria so that's a no) and talks, tweets, huffs and sprays his tan, without actually deploying more troops overs and approving more combat operations, then relations will return to normal and everybody can go on hating on each other and leave their unified disdain for 'Murica alone.

Can Militarism Make America Great Again?

LOL ... who said it ever did?

What made America great was its ability to 'produce' ... and to get that done in a hurry. That rode on the back of brilliance.

These days our children have been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator ... and all of our ability to produce has been shipped out to low wage countries.

a reply to: ttobbanWOW that's a bold statement, are you talking about China, Egypt, Libya or more current South Korea? Nice Corporate flag you have there.

a reply to: cenpuppie

Well put. The problem is that when you have a hammer, all of your problems begin to look like nails. Previous presidents built up large toolkits that included both carrots and sticks (to mix a metaphor). In addition to doubling down on the military, the current president wants to cut back on diplomacy and the international aid programs that actually build good will towards the United States.

One unintended consequence of this is that Non Governmental Organizations will play an ever more conspicuous role, which will lead to more strident denunciations of them by states that feel threatened by humanitarian and human rights activities.

a reply to: Snarl

Actually, it has been our ability to produce ever more efficiently that has caused less skilled labor to become unnecessary. It is not just that jobs are being outsourced; the jobs that remain require fewer workers.

Nobody thinks militarism will make it great again.
America was great because of innovation and production capabilities. We have lost those.

a reply to: 19KTankCommander

I mean internal affairs. I feel the U.S. is in the early stages of a silent political coup. If things get more hectic and heated, and stretches beyond the MSM influence and its relevance in our culture... it means that it could likely lead to conflict between the red/blue establishment vs. the masses. If this occurs, then military then retracts to fix things at home.

The service members then get the free will to decide who to represent if and when such events unraveled within the U.S.. If the people, military, and police are sided as one... the U.S. lives on. If the service members collect and operate for government, then the people don't stand a chance... establishment wins.

Personally, I endorse a peaceful political revolution, of which all affiliations within government are dismantled. The 2 party system does not fit current needs. If I were a red/blue service member, and I were asked to step aside for a stat driven (not party) one, I'd do so gladly. Unfortunately, these politicians of current times would fight any thought of that tooth and nail... because it will directly affect their wealth, legacy, and tyranny. I wish our military involvement was to clean up at home before putting the other countries at a higher priority, so I avoid as much foreign military debate as possible... its beyond my control as I wish for my tax dollars to be spent on the current opiate crisis instead of what the military does outside our borders.

I am very much appreciative of service members current services... wherever located. I would be saddened to find service members congregate against citizens if conflict ever got so intense within the U.S.. I'd be heart broken to witness the valiant efforts of service members go to support the separation of wealth that the current government seemingly endorses.

The corporate avatar is to relay my opinion that businesses get votes equal to or greater than that of a citizen... my greatest wish is to turn it back to stars. It also helps me find my place in the forums, as I suffer from a bit of color blindness.

a reply to: DJW001

In addition to doubling down on the military, the current president wants to cut back on diplomacy and the international aid programs that actually build good will towards the United States.

i don't think other countries will hold that against Americans. America yes, but not Americans. Every once in awhile, you a leader that leaves a bad taste in your mouth. This is ours. This is our Nixon, if i can use the comparison, as far as public perception is. We gotta eat and take one of the team.

One unintended consequence of this is that Non Governmental Organizations will play an ever more conspicuous role, which will lead to more strident denunciations of them by states that feel threatened by humanitarian and human rights activities.

I don't know man, NGO's is one areas I'll leave to those that know more before i form an opinion about them. My outlook on them is conflicted and.. honestly I have dug deep on them except to find Soros fingerprints

Absolutely! It's the perfect solution. It worked for Nazi Germany.

a reply to: DJW001

Now, to the point: do you think that increasing military spending* and "fighting terror" abroad will enhance the United States' reputation, or merely make things worse?

Empire building always ends badly.

The empire builders don't seem to ever get that.

Because they leave things in the hands of militarists who only see military solutions to problems.

Buying a bigger hammer.

a reply to: DJW001

Will militarism improve the United States' reputation in the eyes of others?

No for the miltary machine to work.. wars have to be fought and profits mades..